coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in East Sussex.
7.  His wife died on 7 April 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1995 and 1997. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 23 May 2000 and was rejected on 25 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
8.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Worcestershire.
9.  His wife died on 11 December 1997, leaving him with two children born in 1989 and 1993. His claim for widows' benefits was made in January 1998 and was rejected on 15 January 1998 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant asked for his claim to be re-opened on 1 May 2000 and it was again rejected on 9 May 2000. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
10.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Hertfordshire.
11.  His wife died on 11 April 2000, leaving him with three children born in 1985, 1986 and 1989. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 9 June 2000 and was rejected on 6 July 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
12.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Middlesex.
13.  His wife died on 3 July 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1986 and 1987. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 21 August 2000 and was rejected on 5 September 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
14.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Bedford.
15.  His wife died on 4 August 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1993 and 1996. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 15 September 2000 and was rejected on 22 September 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Klaukkala. He is a former partner in a limited partnership company, which was wound-up in 1993.
5.  On 4 February 1994 the company's estate reported an offence against the applicant. The applicant was first interrogated by the police on 4 July 1995 on suspicion of, inter alia, offences of debtor's fraud, dishonesty and bookkeeping. In June 1997 he was charged on twenty-one counts.
6.  The Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) held the first hearing on 30 September 1997. In the following 14 hearings it heard 21 witnesses named by the prosecutor and 5 witnesses named by the applicant.
7.  At the 16th hearing on 4 March 1999 the District Court delivered its judgment. It convicted the applicant of, inter alia, two aggravated debtor's frauds, two offences of debtor's dishonesty and five bookkeeping offences and sentenced him to one year and eight months' imprisonment. He was ordered to pay the company's estate some 723,400 Finnish Marks (FIM; corresponding to 122,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation and to reimburse its legal expenses.
8.  He appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting an oral hearing. On 16 February 2001 he asked the court to speed up the proceedings and to dismiss the charges because of the length of the proceedings.
9.  On 25 March 2002, without having held an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's judgment with some minor amendments. His conviction was reduced to eighteen months' imprisonment. It rejected the applicant's further claims with the reasoning that the proceedings had not exceeded a reasonable time.
10.  On 2 October 2002 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Starachowice.
6.  The applicant was serving a prison sentence in Tarnów Mościce Prison following three separate convictions. The overall term of his imprisonment was due to come to an end on 6 January 2002.
7.  Pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code applicable to re-offenders, the applicant became eligible for conditional release after having served three-quarters of the overall term of his imprisonment, namely on 6 January 1999. After that date, the applicant requested a court on several occasions to grant him conditional release. However, his requests were denied on grounds of insufficient progress in his rehabilitation. On 20 March 2000 the prison governor requested the Tarnów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) to order the applicant's release (warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie) in view of his satisfactory rehabilitation. The Tarnów Regional Prosecutor objected to that request.
8.  On 22 March 2000 the Tarnów Regional Court gave a decision ordering the applicant's conditional release for a three-year probationary period. It placed the applicant under the court officer's supervision and imposed certain other obligations on him.
9.  The Tarnów Regional Prosecutor appealed against that decision. The Regional Court did not amend its decision and transmitted the prosecutor's appeal to the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).
10.  The hearing before the Court of Appeal was scheduled for 12 April 2000 at 8.45 a.m. On that day the Cracow Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Regional Court. No further appeal lay against the decision of the Court of Appeal. In the applicant's submission, the Court of Appeal's decision was delivered at 9 a.m.
11.  Later on 12 April 2000, a certified copy of the Court of Appeal's decision was sent to the Tarnów Regional Court, which received it on 13 April 2000. On the same day the Tarnów Regional Court ordered the governor of the Tarnów Mościce Prison to release the applicant and served him with a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision. The governor received these documents on 14 April 2000.
12.  According to the official release certificate, the applicant was released on 14 April 2000. The applicant submitted that he had been released on that date at 4 p.m.
6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Copenhagen.
7. On 30 January 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret) against the Ministry of Employment (Beskæftigelsesministeriet), claiming among other things that the Ministry pay him DKK 83,025, equal to approximately 11,000 Euros (EUR), corresponding to the difference between the salary he had received during a seven months so-called “job offer” period and the salary he allegedly should have received in accordance with the collective agreement.
8.  On 8 May 2002 the High Court decided that the case should commence before the City Court. Having been granted leave to appeal against this decision to the Supreme Court (Højesteret), on 20 December 2002 the latter found for the applicant, and referred the case back to the High Court.
9.  In a letter of 20 May 2003 to the Ministry of Justice and the Court Administration (Domstolsstyrelsen) the applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had exceeded the reasonable time requirement within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. By letter of 16 June 2003 the Ministry referred the applicant to lodge his complaint before the High Court, where the case was pending. By letter of 18 June 2003 the Court Administration concurred with the Ministry's reply.
10.  By letter of 8 August 2003 to the division of the High Court dealing with the case, the applicant repeated his complaint and claimed compensation. In reply, on 11 December 2003 the President of the High Court found no reason to grant the applicant compensation inter alia because the High Court had offered that the trial could commence earlier, but that the applicant's counsel had been unable to appear on any of the proposed days.
11.  By judgment of 6 May 2004 the High Court found against the applicant. It also ordered that the applicant pay defendant's costs to the Ministry of Employment in the amount of DKK 90,000.
12.  On 1 July 2004 the applicant appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court (Højesteret), which on 26 April 2006, upheld the High Court's judgment.
4.  The applicants were born in 1976 and 1979 respectively and live in Karlovac.
5.  In 1991 business premises owned by D.P., the applicants' late father, were blown up by unknown perpetrators. Some time later, his car was also damaged beyond repair by an explosive device.
6.  D.P. instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) in 1994, seeking compensation from the State. He relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima).
7.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act, which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation. The new legislation was to be enacted within six months.
8.  Pursuant to the above legislation, the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed D.P.'s proceedings on 5 February 1998. On his appeal, on 31 August 1999 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed that decision and remitted the case.
9.  D.P. died on 25 February 2000.
10.  The Municipal Court again issued a decision staying the proceedings on 16 July 2001.
11.  The applicants and their late mother, acting as D.P.'s heirs, filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 7 May 2002, complaining about the length of the proceedings and the lack of access to a court. They relied on section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Court Act and Article 29 § 1 of the Constitution.
12.  On 28 April 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicants' complaint, ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to bring the proceedings to an end within six months and awarded each of the complainants the amount of 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) wich is approximately euros (EUR) 600.
13.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court were resumed on 18 May 2004 when it declared the applicants' action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. The decision was quashed by the Zagreb County Court on 30 December 2004.
14.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.
10.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Wrocław.
11.  After the applicant's husband had died in September 2002, she instituted proceedings in which she claimed her widow pension.
12.  By a decision of 3 October 2002, the social insurance authority dismissed her request.
13.  On 4 March 2003 the Wroclaw Regional Court dismissed her appeal against this decision. On 2 September 2004 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal dismissed her further appeal.
14.  The appellate court observed that the findings of fact made by the social insurance authority were correct. The applicant and her husband had de facto separated in 1994. He had been living since then with another woman. The applicant had not been receiving any maintenance payments from him. When he had fallen ill, she had not been taking care of him and she had been informed of his poor health only in March 2002. The court considered that the lower court had not erred when it assessed the testimony of one witness, who had submitted that the couple had been living together, as not being credible. The appellate court concluded that the legal requirements for granting a widow pension were not complied with.
15.  The applicant requested that legal aid for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court be granted to her and her request was allowed. The court requested the local Bar Association to assign a lawyer to the case and advocate Z.W. was so assigned on 17 September 2004.
16.  The copy of the judgment of the appellate court was served on Z.W. on 9 November 2004.
17.  By a written opinion of one page and a half dated 3 December 2004 Z.W. advised the applicant that, in his view, a cassation appeal against the judgment of the appellate court did not offer reasonable prospect of success. He referred to the written grounds of the judgment of the appellate court by which that court had explained why the applicant had not complied with the requirements of the applicable law, and considered that in the light of the evidence examined by the courts, there were no grounds on which to argue that the second-instance judgment was in breach of the law. Consequently, he did not draw up the cassation appeal.
18.  The opinion contained the following paragraph:
“I would like to stress that the judgment of the Wroclaw Court of Appeal of 2 September was served on me on 9 October (sic) 2004 and that the thirty-day time-limit for the lodging of a cassation appeal expires on 9 December 2004.”
19.  On 6 December 2004 the applicant had a meeting with the lawyer at his office. He gave her his opinion and informed her that he saw no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal in her case. On the same occasion the applicant was served with the copy of the appellate court's judgment with its written grounds.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and he is currently detained in the Diyarbakır Prison.
5.  On 12 March 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
6.  On 10 April 1995 he was brought before a single judge of the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand. In the course of the proceedings before the court, the applicant denied the statements that he had signed while he was in police custody.
7.  On 13 April 1995 the chief public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter charging the applicant and sixteen other suspects, under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.
8.  In the course of the criminal proceedings, the Diyarbakır State Security Court held thirty hearings and heard seventeen witnesses.
9.  On 3 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Taking into account the applicant's conduct during the trial, the death penalty was commuted to a life sentence.
10.  On 4 June 1999 the applicant appealed against the judgment of the State Security Court.
11.  On 21 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the State Security Court.
12.  On 5 May 2000 the Court of Cassation's decision was deposited with the registry of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Van.
5.  In 1985 the applicant obtained a contract from the Provincial Administration of Van to carry out repair work in twelve public schools in Başkale in order to render them operational.
6.  At a later date, however, he noticed that some of the schools had not yet been fully constructed. He applied to the Governor's Office in Van and requested the contract to be annulled. He submitted that the payment agreed on for the repairs was too low, given the amount of work needed to complete the construction of those schools.
7.  The Governor's Office requested the applicant to start the construction and the repairs, reassuring him that he would be reimbursed for his additional work.
8.  After having completed the construction, the applicant applied to the Provincial Administration of Van and requested additional compensation of 47,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL). However, his repeated efforts proved fruitless as no payment was made.
9.  On 17 July 1989 he filed an action with the Van Civil Court and claimed the outstanding amount of TRL 47,273,000 plus interest.
10.  On an unspecified date, the court appointed an expert to determine the amount of additional payment that the applicant was entitled to recover. However, the expert failed to submit his report.
11.  In the absence of the expert report, the court ordered on-site visits to the schools in order to establish the additional work carried out by the applicant.
12.  On 30 September 1999 the members of the court, accompanied by new experts, conducted an on-site examination at the schools.
13.  On an unspecified date, the experts submitted their calculation of the sums incurred by the applicant for the additional work.
14.  On 26 April 2000 the Van Civil Court awarded the applicant TRL 47,273,000 plus interest calculated at three different rates depending on the relevant period of time, i.e., 30% per annum running from 17 July 1989 to 1 January 1998; 50% per annum from 1 January 1998 to 1 January 2000; and at the rediscount rate running from 1 January 2000 until the date of payment.
15.  The applicant appealed. In his petition to the Court of Cassation he complained about the loss that he had suffered as a result of the high rate of inflation during the proceedings before the civil court.
16.  On 30 November 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the civil court. On 9 April 2001 the same court dismissed the applicant's request for rectification.
17.  On 23 July 2001 the applicant was paid the total amount of TRL 282,795,000, consisting of the capital plus interest incurred until the payment date.
4.  The applicants were born in 1937, 1954, 1944, 1944, 1920, 1964, 1959, 1928, 1958 and 1958, respectively, and live in Hatay.
5.  On various dates, the applicants bought plots of land, near the coast, in Hatay. Some of the applicants constructed houses, others built restaurants and hotels on this land.
6.  In 1995 the Samandağ Municipality, acting on behalf of the Treasury, requested the Samandağ Court of First Instance to determine whether the applicants' land was located within the coastline area. A group of experts, composed of a geomorphologist, a cartography engineer and an agricultural engineer, appointed by the court, inspected the applicants' land and concluded that it was located within the coastline area.
7.  Following the conclusion of the experts' report, the Treasury filed actions before the Samandağ Court of First Instance requesting the annulment of the applicants' title-deeds to the plots because of their coastal area location.
8.  On various dates, the Samandağ Court of First Instance, after having obtained additional expert reports, upheld the request of the Treasury and decided to annul the title-deeds of the applicants. In its decisions, the court held that, pursuant to domestic law, the coast could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides or on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the land.
9.  The applicants' appeals against the judgments of the first-instance court were dismissed by the Court of Cassation. The applicants' requests for rectification of these decisions were also rejected by the Court of Cassation.
The details are indicated in the table below:
 
APPLICATION NO.
NAME OF THE APPLICANT
DATE OF DECISION OF THE FIRST‑INSTANCE COURT
DATE OF FINAL DECISION OF THE COURT OF CASSATION
DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF THE FINAL DECISION OF THE COURT OF CASSATION
36166/02
Bedi Asfuroğlu
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  In 2000 she brought a court action against the social security service of the Zheleznodorozhnyy District of Voronezh and the Financial Division of the Voronezh Regional administration for delays in payment of child support benefits.
6.  On 3 February 2000 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicant's claim and awarded her 1,919.53 Russian roubles. The judgment entered into force on 14 February 2000.
7.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced because the Voronezh Regional administration lacked necessary funds.
8.  On 13 February 2006 the judgment of 3 February 2000 was enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and resides in the town of Krasniy Luch, Lugansk region, Ukraine.
5.  In November 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against his former employer, the State “Pryvillya” group of companies (Концерн «Привілля»), challenging his dismissal and claiming salary arrears. After several examinations by different courts, on 7 March 2003 the Antratsytivskyy Town Court reinstated the applicant in his position and awarded him 5,137.51[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) in salary arrears (Рішення Антрацитівського міського суду). The judgment remains unenforced.
6.  The applicant instituted another set of proceedings against the same defendant in the Krasnoluchskyy Town Court, claiming salary arrears. On 1 November 2000 the court awarded the applicant UAH 56.02[2] (Рішення Краснолуцького міського суду Луганської області). The judgment remains unenforced.
7.  The applicant instituted several proceedings in the Krasnolutskyy Town Court against another of his former employers, the State “Imeni Izvestiy” mine (ДВАТ шахта імені «Ізвєстій» ДХК «Донбасантрацит»), claiming salary arrears and other payments. On 26 October 2000, 13 February 2002, 10 February 2003 and 30 July 2003, the court awarded the applicant a total of UAH 10,466.47[3].
8.  By 10 September 2003 and 27 March 2006 the judgments of 26 October 2000 and 13 February 2002, respectively, were enforced in full. The applicant received UAH 2,852.88[4] in enforcement of other judgments; the rest of amounts awarded remains unpaid.
9.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnolutskyy Town Court against the Krasnolutskyy Town Bailiffs' Service, claiming compensation for the failure to enforce the judgments in his favour. On 16 October 2003 the court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service, which had acted properly in trying to enforce the judgments. The court further noted that the debtors' property was in a tax lien and that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced. On 12 February 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Lugansk Region upheld this judgment.
10.  On 26 June 2003 the “Pryvillya” group of companies was declared bankrupt.